[John Kavanaugh]

It depends if during the two hours you save by going to a movie instead of playing golf you either buy a winning lottery ticket or get killed in a drive by shooting.  Reginald Denny should have skipped work and played golf.

[rjsimper]

But how does this apply to travel but not the cost of golf itself?  If I wake up one morning and pay $57 to play Rustic Canyon knowing that if I hadn't played I would have gone to a movie and bought popcorn and a soda for $20.  Did my round at Rustic Canyon cost me $57 or did it cost me $37?

It cost $57 by any rational reckoning. It's not like buying a new battery for your car and saving the cost of a tow truck. Forgoing the round at Rustic in no way obligates you to buy the movie ticket, popcorn and soda.

Now if you're talking about justifications to ones spouse that isn't a rational undertaking, there's a certain element of irrationality due to desperation. But the round really does cost $57. If you call a tail a leg how many legs does a dog have? Four. Plus a tail that's called a leg.

I agree, but I also spent $16 in gas to get to and from the course - the round to me cost $73, which is why I think Sand Hills costs me $600 to play.

[Brent Hutto]

Ryan,

I agree on both counts, assuming of course you weren't otherwise going to be in the area. And with Sand Hills I think that's an awfully good assumption.

[PCCraig]

I wish I could play Yale, I tried calling once when I was in the area and they said no because I was not a member / student / whatever.

For Augusta? Not sure I would even pay $1,000. I would rather play many other courses than there.

I have driven past that PB Dye Course in Tenn! Lots of billboards right?

[Cliff Hamm]

Pat...Yale may be played if you have an alumnus call, member call or golf professional.  Any golf professional.  You do not have to be a member of the course.  Access is therefore quite liberal.

[tlavin]

$500 is a tough-to-swallow number that should only be reserved for very special venues.  Other than that, $300 strikes me as reasonable for a number of top-flight venues.  Given the price of land and the cost of maintaining a top-notch facility, I don't think that's too high.

[John Kavanaugh]

Ryan,

On my most recent trip to play Bandon I drove along the coast from Portland down.  During the Democratic debate this winter I took great pleasure in knowing that I was near the Regan Library when I played Rustic.  On my trip to Kiawah during the dark of night I imagined being in the civil war and marching through those swamps.  Travel has value. 

[Tony_Chapman]

Ok, I'll bite on this. Having lived in Nebraska all my life it's tough to pay a lot of money to golf. Generally, I need to stay under $150 (and it'd probably need to be world class for me to spend that). But I did spend the money to play Pebble six years ago. I won't do it again, though.

I think I've only paid over $100 of my own money on three occassions: Sand Hills (note, since I live four hours away this was a one day trip, leaving at 6am and returning at 11pm, no cabins for me), Pebble Beach and Pasatiempo. I've also played Pinehurst #2 and Prairie Dunes, but alas, I have wonderful parents.

[rjsimper]

Ryan,

On my most recent trip to play Bandon I drove along the coast from Portland down.  During the Democratic debate this winter I took great pleasure in knowing that I was near the Regan Library when I played Rustic.  On my trip to Kiawah during the dark of night I imagined being in the civil war and marching through those swamps.  Travel has value. 

Very true - I played Wild Horse on a cross country drive, however I can think of little value in going to Hutchinson, Kansas aside from my sole purpose in being there to play Prairie Dunes - expensive trip that was well worth it...I had no interest in the local space museum Hutchinson boasts.

All these years driving by it, and I never made it to the Reagan library to see the 707. 

[Kalen Braley]

Opportunity costs should techincally always be included in the price of anything.

If one knows they would have partaken in Activity "B" that costs $50, if they hadn't choose to do activity "A" which costs $100, then the econmic "cost" of activity "A" is indeed only $50, even if the accounting cost is $100.

I think this defintition puts it best:

The consideration of opportunity costs is one of the key differences between the concepts of economic cost and accounting cost. Assessing opportunity costs is fundamental to assessing the true cost of any course of action

[Brent Hutto]

Kalen,

Unless you're being tongue in cheek you fundamentally misunderstand the definition of an opportunity cost. It is a component of the cost of an alternative when choosing that alternative entails forgoing an opportunity to earn or save some amount of money. If it costs you $100 to play golf and you could have earned $50 by being at work for those four hours then the true cost of the round of golf is $100+$50=$150. The additional $50 is an opportunity cost, i.e. engaging in golf costs you the opportunity for $50 of income.

But I suspect you know all that and are having us on sans emoticon.

[Pete Lavallee]

I'll go on record right now that I would pay $225 to play Cypress Point GC; not a penny more!

[Kalen Braley]

Brent,

Actually I wasn't being tongue in cheek, but perhaps more explanation is needed.  Opportunity cost is a relative term and can be used in different contexts.  Consider the following:

"Opportunity cost" of a resource, is the value of the next-highest-valued alternative use of that resource. If, for example, you spend time and money going to a movie, you cannot spend that time at home reading a book, and you can't spend the money on something else. If your next-best alternative to seeing the movie is reading the book, then the opportunity cost of seeing the movie is the money spent plus the pleasure you forgo by not reading the book.

So in the example from my previous post, while the financial cost is actually $100, the opportunity cost as it relates to the "value" of the next best thing is only $50.  So its all relative to something else...but yes this doesn't show up on the books anywhere, just a benefical tool in doing cost-benefit analysis that can be applied in this thread.

If one will either travel to play golf, or stay at home and see a movie, then either way they will at least pay the cheaper amount to see the movie, so the true figure in determing the "cost" should be the delta between the two, even though the money leaving your wallet will still be the price of everything in the trip.

[Brent Hutto]

There are three quantities in your example and we can correctly name each of them as follows:

a) There's a quantity of $100 properly known as "the cost of the round of golf".

b) There's a quantity of $50 properly labelled "the cost of the next best thing".

c) There's another quantity of $50 that should be called "the difference between the cost of the round of golf and the cost of the next best thing".

There's no convoluted logic by which that latter $50 can be referred to as the cost of the round of golf. It's not the true cost, the accounting cost, the opportunity cost, the economic cost or any other cost. It is the difference in cost between two alternatives.

If I can buy a Big Mac for $1 and a steak for $20 the existence of the Big Mac does not make the steak cost $19. Nor does my announcement that if I don't buy the steak I will have a Big Mac instead. The $19 amount has no meaning other than being the difference of two costs. It is not itself a cost.

Otherwise, one could announce that the alternative to buying a steak is to buy some caviar for $100 in which case the cost of the steak is negative. Nonsense. The round of golf or the steak costs what it costs. Any attempt to wiggle out of it is just something your wife lets pass because she likes you.

[Kalen Braley]

Brent,

The difference between the two as you pointed out in point 3 is indeed the opportunity cost, not the actual cost.  In the example I provided in my last post, it clearly stated:

"then the opportunity cost of seeing the movie is the money spent" vs staying at home and reading the book for free.

If playing a round of golf is $100, and the next best alternative is spending $50 on an amusement park, the opportunity cost between the two is only the $50 delta, not the entire $100.

Kalen

[Brent Hutto]

I'm disagreeing with your labelling of any quantity as an "opportunity cost" in the examples given. That is a Humpty Dumpty definition of the term.

[Ken Moum]

Very true - I played Wild Horse on a cross country drive, however I can think of little value in going to Hutchinson, Kansas aside from my sole purpose in being there to play Prairie Dunes - expensive trip that was well worth it...I had no interest in the local space museum Hutchinson boasts.

If you time it right, you can go to the Kansas State Fair while you're in Hutch.

Ken

[Ronald Montesano]

A.  How much you would pay references how much you would get out of the round.  If playing Belching Warthog G&CC means that you are elevated in the business world, circle of friends or family to the extent that you have a higher opinion of yourself, you'll go ahead and up the ante.  If the way you roll ignores such trappings, then you'll not pay to play BWGCC.

B.  Location IS everything.  Tall Cliffs is Tall Cliffs because of its positioning at the meeting of land and sea, near a well-to-do metropolis, with a great p.r. machine firing on all cylinders.  Tall Cliffs transferred to flat mesa or lowland central will not be able to demand the same price point.

C.  How much you would pay versus how much you can reasonably pay are two completely separate questions.  I would pay $10000 dollars to play Fleeced Sheep National if the money didn't matter.  If you have access to serious jing, a spouse who supports you (or a non-existent spouse), little debt and free time, you'll concur.  If your income bracket is average, you'll resist.

D.  What Flemma said got me thinking about Father and Son architects...RTJ2 is similar to Perry Dye.  Anyone EVER play a friendly RTJ2 course?  Kaluhyat (at Turning Stone in NY) is absolutely off-the-charts difficult.  Even RTJ1's adopted son (Roger Rulewich) seems to strive for the unplayable.  Thank goodness no scions of Travis, Ross, nor MacKenzie ever got into the game.  Doak...think twice.

[John Kavanaugh]

One of the ways I justify paying dues is through the use of opportunity costs.  At $600 per month you can say a club costs $20 per day to golf.  Sitting at my desk right now I have to weigh the options of either working, drinking, gambling, talking to my wife or golfing.  If I choose to golf it only costs me the $20 I have already payed for the right to play today.  If I choose to work, invest time in my marital relationship, or just get drunk and gamble I plan on earning a return far greater than $20.  Therefore my cost per round at a $600 a month private club is only $20 per round no matter how few rounds I play per year.

[Matt_Ward]

It would be interesting for people to answer the following ...

1). How much is the most they have ever paid ?

2). Was it worth it then -- and now when you look back ?

3). How much can you afford and a good bit of that answer is tied to one's disposable income and other requirements within one's life (it's called family priorities, etc, etc).

4). One last question -- does the fact that a course is $199 and one that is $235 really change the consideration of how such a course viewed ?

[Tim Leahy]

I'll go on record right now that I would pay $225 to play Cypress Point GC; not a penny more!

If anyone out there is considering inviting Pete for a round at Cypress, I will pay $500, buy you lunch and can be there on the tee by tomorrow morning. Just saying.

I paid $375 five years ago to play Pebble, it is now $500, and it was worth every penny. I would pay 5 bills now for Cypress or Augusta or a round at any course anywhere anytime with a naked Pam Anderson.

[Greg Tallman]

Are the same folks who brag of dining at some of the more famous restaurants (and paying through the nose) the same ones complaining about golf rates?

Not sure about you but I believe there is a bigger discrepancy between a decent steak and a great steak than an average course and a great course.

But again that is the charm of this site.

[Sean_A]

Not sure about you but I believe there is a bigger discrepancy between a decent steak and a great steak than an average course and a great course.

But again that is the charm of this site.

Greg

I reckon thats the bottom line for me.  I don't believe there is a huge discrepency in quality between a very large number of courses.  It is more a matter of taste and the quality of the experience.  I have said it before, if it was just the architecture folks were interested a large percentage of these courses can be viewed without coughing up a green fee.  So I think its more than that and fair proof that the experience skews our view of the quality of the course. 

Matt

The most I paid was at Pinehurst.  At the time I think it was $350 for a round, but we were in a package.  I won't ever pay that much for a public course again because I didn't care for the Disney World atmosphere of the place. The course was very good, but I enjoy many other courses just as much for much less. 

Ciao

Ciao

[Brad Fleischer]

Matt most I have ever paid was 350 . Payed it for the ocean course in cabo. Never again and no to me it was not worth it then or now. Will be paying 274 for Lahinch twice in August. The answer to that remains to be seen. Hopefully it will be a resounding "YES". Yes I feel it's to much but  I look at it like a once in a lifetime oppurtunity in case I never get back there. As far as what I can afford, that to me is to broad a question and one i'd rather not think about  Sometimes it's good being single lol

No to me 35 bucks really wouldn't sway me one way or another. Example if cabo was 199 or 235 it still wouldn't be worth it.

[Joe Bausch]

While on vacay I played Bandon and PD for, I think, just north of 300 for both rounds.  I did not mind paying it as I was on vacation and I don't worry about costs so much then.

In the July 5th issue of Golfweek, in the Hate to be Rude section, Tom Kite was asked "If you were the czar of all things golf, what would you change about the game?".  His answer is refreshing:

"We're spending millions and millions of dollars year-round on different programs from The First Tee... all the PGA initiatives, and we cannot make the game grow.  The game is not growing because it costs so dang much to play golf."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()